The settlement will meet the vast majority of the Crown’s pre-commencement space obligations and covers the Hauraki Gulf, Marlborough Sounds, Tasman Bay, and the rest of the South Island. It has required a great deal of collaboration and hard work by both Government officials and iwi, and it is the result of innovative thinking and a desire from both sides to reach a quick settlement that is fair to both parties. The fact that the settlement spans more than half of New Zealand’s coastal area and well over 90 percent of the aquaculture sector is testament to what an achievement it is.

In 1992 the Crown reached a full and final settlement with Māori for all claims under the Treaty of Waitangi relating to New Zealand’s commercial capture fisheries. The Government has an ongoing responsibility to develop policies and programmes to recognise and provide for non-commercial customary fishing. Aquaculture was the unfinished business of that settlement, being the use of New Zealand’s coastal marine space to commercially farm kai moana. The settling of Māori claims to commercial aquaculture between 1992 and 2004 with the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 is an important element of the relationship between Māori and the Crown. Unfortunately, the transfer of settlement assets to iwi did not happen as anticipated in 2004. As a result of the lack of movement, a way to more effectively deliver the benefits of the settlement to iwi had to be found. The Crown and the iwi of the South Island and Hauraki have worked together and have found the way forward, through early financial settlement and regional agreements.

The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act does not currently allow for early financial settlement or for regional agreements of the type that the Crown and iwi have negotiated, and that Act needs to be amended. The bill that we have before us tonight will amend the Act and get the settlement assets flowing to iwi. The fair, full, and final settlement of Treaty of Waitangi grievances is a high priority for this Government. I will interpolate and say how delighted I was to be at Te Wai-iti Marae this morning with my parliamentary colleague Mita Ririnui for the signing of the Ngāti Whare deed of settlement. It was a very good day. On Saturday we will be back up in Murupara for the signing of the Ngāti Manawa deed of settlement.

I have written to all remaining iwi around the country in relation to this bill to offer the opportunity for them to have an early financial settlement in their areas. The Ministry of Fisheries, on behalf of the Crown, is currently engaging with those iwi, and there is a possibility that the entire pre-commencement space obligation will be completed well before 2014, which is the date envisaged by the settlement legislation. I note that the iwi of the South Island and Hauraki are willing to lend their support to helping the remaining iwi to accomplish similar settlements to theirs, and I publicly express my thanks to them for their ongoing commitment to this process.

The deed of settlement and this bill epitomise the principle of mahi tahi, which is to work together as one, not only between the Crown and iwi but also between iwi themselves, which is important. It is quite something that all the iwi of the South Island were able to set aside old differences and come together to negotiate a common settlement with the Crown. I particularly acknowledge the initiative of the Te Tau Ihu fisheries forum and its chair, Richard Bradley of Rangītane, during the early stages of the settlement for the South Island. I acknowledge the work of officials from the Ministry of Fisheries and the contribution of the iwi leaders of Te Tau Ihu, Ngāi Tahu, and Hauraki, together with the assistance of Te Ohu Kaimoana and the iwi legal adviser Justine Inns. I particularly thank previous Ministers, including the Hon Parekura Horomia, for their work in seeing the potential to negotiate an early financial settlement across these areas and starting the negotiation process. I also thank the Māori Affairs Committee for the efficient and expeditious manner in which this bill progressed through the select committee, and for the two very useful technical amendments that the committee has recommended. These changes will strengthen the bill and improve its effectiveness and application.

I note the overwhelming support for the deed of settlement and for this bill from iwi, local government, and the aquaculture and seafood industry. I commend the bill, with the technical amendments recommended by the select committee, to the House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Justice) : I am advised by the Legal Services Agency that the amount paid to date in relation to Mr Burton’s legal aid file is $12,342.50. That amount includes lawyers’ fees and other relevant disbursements that have been approved to date. Although the trial has concluded, Mr Burton has yet to be sentenced. The final cost of services is not yet known.

David Garrett: Does the Minister agree that regardless of the outcome of the trial and, indeed, the sentencing, Mr Burton will be in prison for at least the next 25 years in any case?

Mr SPEAKER: I urge caution in this area, because, as I understand the situation, Graeme Burton has not yet been sentenced, and I do not think it is appropriate for this House to be raising issues in respect of that matter. I do not want to take a supplementary question off the member; if he likes he can ask a different supplementary question. I ask him to be very careful about the fact that this particular convicted person has not yet been sentenced.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is true, and that was why the question was so carefully framed. It was making a point about the sentence that Mr Burton is already serving. He is already in prison for 25 years. That was the point that my colleague Mr David Garrett was making. Mr Burton is serving 25 years in prison regardless.

Mr SPEAKER: This is quite important. I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I, unusually, have to agree with Rodney Hide. It was a carefully worded question, which did have “regardless of” the sentence that is about to be imposed as part of it. I think the question was actually about the old sentence and the likelihood of parole. The Minister of Justice could probably say that he has no responsibility and does not want to comment, but I think the question should not be ruled out.

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the advice offered by colleagues, but what troubles me is that we normally have to be very careful in referring to the past records of people who are before the courts. This case, at least, is beyond the basic conviction. We are at the point of sentencing, though. The dilemma I have is that, obviously, details of the convicted person’s past are relevant to sentencing in respect of the conviction currently before the court. That is the dilemma I face on the matter. I ask the member to ask a supplementary question, being very careful of the fact that if there is undue reference to the past record, convictions, and sentencing of a person currently before the court, there is risk of argument that it may influence the court. I ask him to be very conscious of that.

David Garrett: I will simply ask a different question, to save any potential conflict. Does the Minister agree that every single dollar paid out in criminal legal aid is $1 less available for civil legal aid for such persons as those who are suffering from a leaky home that they cannot afford to fix?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, and I can understand that member’s point of view. But I would say two things in response to it. First, it is the hallmark of a just society that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, regardless of conduct. The legal aid system provides for a fair trial regardless of what sort of person the court is dealing with. The second point is that—and I am sure that the member, as an experienced barrister, would understand this—legal aid quite often prevents defendants from acting for themselves. I am sure the member is aware of appalling cases where defendants have sought to cross-examine their victims, notwithstanding the restrictions contained in section 95 of the Evidence Act. So there is a very good reason why we have a legal aid system for criminals.

I begin by thanking the various officials who have worked on this issue and on the bill that is now before the House. They have provided valuable support in ensuring that the Government’s priorities of ensuring public safety and providing value for money are reflected in the approach that is being taken. Those priorities are reflected also in the commitment the Government has shown to improving the provision of drug and alcohol treatment in prisons, and to improving the provision of education in prisons, particularly in literacy and numeracy.

In the long term, those measures—coupled with the various other initiatives in the justice sector being promoted, particularly, by the Minister of Justice—will reduce the growth of the prison population. Reducing the rate of growth of the prison population is the Government’s preferred long-term approach to the corrections portfolio. However, in the short term, measures to increase capacity in the prison system and the flexibility of the prison system, such as those in the bill currently before the House, are necessary to ensure that public safety is preserved.

This bill allows the use of court cells that have been gazetted as parts of corrections prisons, notwithstanding the provisions of local district plans. It addresses an anomaly that was identified by the previous Government, and provides increased flexibility in managing the increasing prison population. I commend the bill to the House.

I thank the previous speaker, Maryan Street, for her helpful comments. This is, indeed, a matter that has covered two administrations, and I acknowledge those Ministers in the previous Labour Government who played their part as we headed towards its settlement. To those members of the iwi who may have been present in the House when the Hon Tariana Turia was speaking, I simply say what I said in the House a few days ago in relation to the Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill, which was that I did not, as it were, slope off while the Minister was speaking. There is some little rule of procedure that requires the Minister in charge of the House not to be present if someone else is going to do the first reading. I did not want Mr Hughes or someone on the Labour side to take some pettifogging procedural point that would have caused me embarrassment. So there we are.

As the Minister said, this bill gives effect to aspects of the deed of on-account settlement that was signed by the working party of the Southern Whanganui Cluster and Tūpoho, on behalf of Whanganui iwi and the Crown, on 31 July, 2009. The bill protects Whanganui iwi interests in the northern part of the forest, and in the half share of the land under the prison, as was mentioned by the previous speaker. The agreement by the Crown to enter into an on-account settlement was an outcome of discussions between Ngāti Apa and the working party, and its aim was to address the concerns Whanganui iwi had with parts of the North Island Ngāti Apa settlement.

Addressing overlapping interests is one of the key challenges in Treaty settlements. It is a difficult and complex area, and there are no easy answers. Where groups claim an interest in sites offered to iwi in settlement negotiations, the Crown has an obligation to engage with them and to consider their interests in good faith. The on-account settlement with Whanganui iwi demonstrates the Crown’s willingness to find flexible and creative solutions to these difficult issues of overlapping interests.

As my colleague the Hon Tariana Turia has said, the deed of on-account settlement provides the working party with the opportunity to acquire, firstly, a half share of the land under the prison, and, secondly, the half of the forest that was not offered to Ngāti Apa. The right of deferred selection offered to the Whanganui iwi over these properties is subject to Ngāti Apa first exercising their right of deferred selection over the land under the prison and the southern half of the forest. If Ngāti Apa do not purchase the half-share of the land under the prison or the southern half of the forest, the Crown will retain the properties. The value of the transfer of assets transferred in this on-account settlement will be taken into account when the Crown makes an offer of redress for the final settlement of the Whanganui iwi historical claims.

This is the second on-account settlement that has been offered to Whanganui iwi; the first was the transfer of the courthouse in Wanganui, with a lease-back to the Crown, and that was agreed in 2004. The transfer of these properties to Whanganui iwi is closely linked to provisions in the Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill to transfer the land under the prison and the southern part of the forest.

More broadly, there are a number of other positive developments in the Whanganui rohe at present. The Whanganui District Inquiry is now coming to a close, and the final hearing is in mid-December. Then, I expect, the focus of the iwi will turn to its coming into negotiations. I understand that the progression of land claims will be a topic of discussion at the hui-ā-iwi that is being held this weekend. I very much look forward to entering an intensive phase of negotiations early next year on the Whanganui River claims. Indeed, I was speaking to Sir Archie Taiaroa about that matter this morning, and I think that everyone hopes we will be able to achieve something by the middle of next year. Certainly, that is the hope.

With those words, I indeed support this bill going to the select committee, where it can be dealt with in conjunction with the Ngāti Apa bill, and dealt with, I hope, as quickly as possible.

I welcome Ngāti Apa representatives who have joined us today for this historic occasion. Just in case some of them were wondering why I had sloped off out of the House instead of listening to the speech of my parliamentary friend and colleague Tariana Turia, I say that I did so because an odd rule of this place requires that the Minister in charge of the bill cannot be present in the House in those circumstances. That is why I had to listen to her speech in the lobby—but I was certainly listening.

The grievances of Ngāti Apa in the North Island are significant and longstanding. The Ngāti Apa (North Island) Claims Settlement Bill recognises and addresses those grievances. The bill settles all of the historic Treaty of Waitangi claims of North Island Ngāti Apa. The iwi’s area of interest extends from the north of Foxton up to the south of Wanganui, and runs east from the coast, up past Hunterville. The historical grievances of the iwi relate primarily to the Crown’s purchase in 1849 of the 260,000-acre Rangitīkei-Turakina block, including the subsequent failure to adequately protect approximately 35,000 acres of reserve land set aside from this transaction. Their claims also relate to the operation and impact of native land laws, which contributed to the erosion of traditional tribal structures and resulted in the gradual alienation of nearly all remaining North Island Ngāti Apa land.

Ngāti Apa have travelled a long road to have their claims addressed by the Crown. The Crown recognised the mandate of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa in November 2004, and negotiations on the settlement package began with the signing of the terms of negotiation in July 2005. An agreement in principle was signed on 12 July 2007, followed by an initial deed of settlement in September 2008. During September and October last year, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa undertook a ratification process for the deed of settlement and proposed a post-governance entity. Thirty-five percent of the registered adult members of North Island Ngāti Apa voted on the deed of settlement and proposed governance arrangements. Of those, 97 percent voted in favour of accepting both the deed of settlement and the proposed governance arrangements. The Crown and North Island Ngāti Apa subsequently signed a deed of settlement on 8 October 2008. I want to acknowledge the efforts of previous Ministers, including the previous speaker, Mita Ririnui, in getting to that very happy state.

Settling the North Island Ngāti Apa claims is an important further step in this country’s progress towards settling all historical Treaty claims. The bill gives effect to the undertakings by the Crown on the deed of settlement, and includes an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments and apology, commercial and financial redress totalling $16 million, and a right to purchase approximately 6,500 hectares of Crown forest licensed land and certain other Crown-owned properties and assets. It also includes a cultural redress package designed around the aspirations of North Island Ngāti Apa, as articulated by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa during negotiations. It focuses on cultural revitalisation and cultural reconnection.

Key components of the package are unique to the settlement and include cultural revitalisation in respect of the gifting of five papakāinga properties and the provision of funding to develop and implement a strategy for revitalising tikanga, funding to assist in compiling a comprehensive historical record, and cultural reconnection in respect of the transfer of 12 sites of significance, of which nine are public conservation land with public access and third-party rights protected for all but two sites. It also includes other cultural redress instruments over Crown-owned land and relationship agreements with certain agencies.

Although it is not possible to fully compensate Ngāti Apa nor any claimant group for the loss their people have suffered, the cultural redress in this bill seeks to recognise Ngāti Apa’s longstanding cultural and spiritual association in the region. I am confident that the bill will settle Ngāti Apa’s claims in a full and final manner, it having taken into account all of their grievances and the rights of all New Zealanders.

I want to acknowledge the Ngāti Apa people who suffered the breaches of the Treaty and who carried the grievances. I particularly want to acknowledge those who are no longer with us. Ngāti Apa is historically well known for visionary leadership, and today’s leadership has sought to restore iwi unity and prestige.

I wish to acknowledge Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Apa, including the members of the negotiating team. I agreed with the previous speaker who, in a very gracious and generous speech, described them as a young team, and indeed they are a young and dynamic team with great futures. Their dedication and determination on behalf of Ngāti Apa have been vital in the path towards achieving settlement.

I also want to thank other Ministers in departments involved in this settlement. A number of people from across the political spectrum have made important contributions to this settlement, over the years. The introduction of this bill begins the last stage of the settlement process, which seeks to recognise what is important to the people of Ngāti Apa and to provide redress for historical breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is one of the many settlements this Government is progressing towards its goal of settling historical Treaty claims justly and durably by 2014. I very much look forward to the bill returning from the select committee so that we can pass it as quickly as possible.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Trade) : The National-led Government last night signed a free-trade agreement with Malaysia. Malaysia is New Zealand’s eighth-largest export market, accounting for almost $1 billion worth of exports in 2008. This free-trade agreement further deepens our ties and strengthens our relationship with a key partner, underlining New Zealand’s commitment to this rapidly integrating region. The free-trade agreement supplements the existing 12-country ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed earlier this year, and is another contribution towards the goal of a possible free-trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region.

Jacqui Dean: What specific benefits will the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement provide for New Zealand?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: This agreement provides exporters, service providers, and investors with new opportunities and greater certainty while doing business in Malaysia. It will eliminate tariffs on 99.5 percent of New Zealand’s exports. Key export industries will benefit from measures including duty-free access for kiwifruit by 2012; binding our existing duty-free access for meat, wool, dairy, fish, and forestry products; and early elimination of tariffs on manufactured products like certain steel, paint, and plastic products.

Hon Annette King: Can he confirm that the act of signing a free-trade agreement with Malaysia by the Prime Minister is the final part of a 3-year - plus process, in whose success the Hon Phil Goff, as former Minister of Trade, had a large part to play?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I can confirm that there has been a bipartisan approach to this trade agreement, and that the former Minister of Trade played his part. He was an energetic Minister of Trade; it is a shame he did not show that energy as leader of the Labour Party.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was a very straight question. The answer from the Acting Minister was a very good answer until he had to be nasty at the end. You have ruled against him doing this on nearly every question he answers. I think it is time that it stopped. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am listening to a point of order; let us have some silence while I am doing so. I think the member’s point is fairly made: it was a fair question. It obviously had political overtones, but it was a fair question. To add a nasty phrase at the end of the answer was totally unnecessary. I think members should cease that, and I ask the Minister not to do that again.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: No. The Minister is advised that NZAID, Treasury, and the Ministry of Social Development have not yet seen the report, and the Government cannot comment about the content of a report it has not received. However, I can advise the member that an electronic version of the executive summary, which was sent in advance of the report’s release, has been received. I understand that this summary says nothing about the inequality scores the member referred to in his question.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that this report has been completely available for the past week, has Cabinet discussed the findings of British researchers Wilkinson and Pickett that “Almost every modern social and environmental problem—ill-health, lack of community life, violence, drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours, big prison populations—is more likely to occur in a less equal society.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he concerned that the same research shows that violence is higher and more people are imprisoned in more unequal countries; if so, what is his Government doing to improve New Zealand’s inequality ranking from that reported by the United Nations Development Programme?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government would need to study the report in detail before it could comment on the methodology used or the reliability of the data. I understand that methodology and data are often contentious aspects of such reports.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the methodology of the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report is now 17 years old, and that this particular ranking is taken from the Gini coefficient ratio, which is well known to researchers and policy makers, is he concerned that more people suffer from mental illness in more unequal countries; if so, what is his Government doing to improve New Zealand’s inequality ranking from that recorded by the United Nations Development Programme?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister cannot be concerned or unconcerned until the report has been read and the methodology data has been studied.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Working on the assumption that the report will no doubt be read by the Government in due course, at its leisure, is his Government’s policy of tax cuts for the rich and cutting weekly accident compensation entitlements for casual and seasonal workers likely to increase or decrease inequality in New Zealand?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I can assure the member that when the report is received it will be read.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: No.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he intend to set a date for New Zealand to reach the aid target of 0.7 percent GNI to show that his Government will improve on our current miserly and inept performance—to paraphrase Kipling: last, loneliest, ugliest?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Those figures are always under review, but the fact of the matter remains that the report that the member refers to is flawed in a number of respects.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he concerned, given the flaws in the report, that the emphasis of his Government in his aid policy on economic growth will undermine the goals of poverty and hunger alleviation in the Pacific Islands countries specifically, given New Zealand’s ranking of last for sustainable agriculture, second-to-last for social protection, and last for climate change?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.

Phil Twyford: How will the Government’s policy to re-orient New Zealand’s aid to private sector development help reduce the rate at which women in Papua New Guinea die in childbirth, which is 23 times higher than the rate in New Zealand, given that the ActionAid report rates New Zealand as the lowest in the OECD on aid to social protection?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Unlike the Labour member, we do not believe that bureaucracy can be equated with aid.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table the report of ActionAid, which points out New Zealand’s miserable performance, so that the Government can explain in greater detail the flaws—

Mr SPEAKER: The member should just seek leave to table the document and describe the document, not comment on it further. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) : I recently announced the appointment of a task force to investigate ways to improve private philanthropic giving to arts and heritage organisations such as the New Zealand Film Archive, which I visited today. The task force seeks to advance the Government’s election promise to turbocharge community and not-for-profit groups. It is chaired by Peter Biggs, who was an outstanding chair of Creative New Zealand, and includes some of New Zealand’s most high-profile supporters of the arts, including Dame Jenny Gibbs and Caroline Henwood. The culture of private giving adds a great deal to the resources of overseas cultural institutions, but is less well developed here.

Jacqui Dean: Where does philanthropy fit in the Government’s vision for the arts?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Although we wish to encourage a culture of greater individual giving, this is in addition to the Government’s funding of the arts. This year’s Budget increased funding to Creative New Zealand and the Royal New Zealand Ballet by $10.2 million over 4 years, and, helpfully, an additional one-off payment was also secured through the Lotteries Grants Board for Creative New Zealand, the Film Commission, and the Film Archive. This Government believes that the arts should receive public and private support because they provide real social and economic benefits to this country.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Will he provide an answer assuring that there will be no decrease in Government funding for the arts and culture sector as a result of any increase in charitable giving by private individuals to the arts and cultural institutions?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am seeking to grow the arts budget. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the Government has very real responsibilities to fund the arts and that, in addition, the increase in funding from private and corporate sources will encourage an explosion in the arts.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Yes, I do. I regularly talk to members of the legal profession, and an increasing concern is that the standard of some lawyers working in our courts is not sufficiently high. One even told me recently of a lawyer who, having no knowledge of basic court etiquette, addressed the court by saying “Yo, judge.”

Sandra Goudie: What does the Attorney-General believe can be done to improve the overall standard of the Bar?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am tempted to say “Yo, Sandra.”! I outlined a number of suggestions in my recent speech to the Bar Association. These included an effective certification process for trial advocates, ongoing mandatory, effective continuing legal education, especially for those who are in their first 3 years of practice, and also a duty to cooperate with the court being written into the High Court Rules. I have also been advocating the development of an effective mentoring programme for some of our younger practitioners, and I will do whatever I can to assist such programmes.